It amazes me how we agree on so many levels but yet you want to smite me for believing the same as you.

The reason I wanted to smite you is because you smote someone I respect, and not just that you smote him, but that you smote him because you wanted a different answer than the one he gave. It was the emotional impulse to wade in and hit you back for what I saw as an unjust attack. The reason I didn't smite you is because I realized that doing so would simply make things worse. You clearly felt justified in what you did, and the fact that I would have felt just as justified in smiting you back wouldn't have made any more of a difference to you than your feeling justified made a difference to me.

Quote from: junebug72

I'm trying to prove that the existence of a religion in Jesus's name is in contradiction to what Jesus taught. Do you disagree with that idea?

Honestly, I don't know. To a very large degree, it's human nature to venerate things you agree with, as well as anything that champions those things. It's pretty easy to go from venerating something to making it into a religion, whether it's your own personal religion or something you share with millions of other people. I don't think you need a deity in order to have a religion. You just need something that you venerate so much that you don't even think about it. It doesn't matter whether that thing is a person, a god, science, a government, a principle, or even just a sports team; if you get to the point where it's so much a part of you that you defend it without thinking about it, it's become a religion to you.

Quote from: junebug72

So OCG gets laminated for only accepting part of the bible and I get none for not believing any of it. You make no sense. I did get a thumbs up way back when so I guess that's OK. I have had my laminated moments here as well. Shoot we all need to feel special sometimes.

I gave him the equivalent of a thumbs-up for two reasons. First, because I didn't think your opinion was justified, and that was a better way to express it than to smack you down for expressing your opinion, and second, because what he said made sense. If you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something was inserted in the Bible after the fact, then it makes no sense to give that thing any special credence. My opinion goes further than that - we can't actually prove where anything in the Bible came from, and so before I give any of it credence, I would want to see corroborating evidence which supported it. But I respect OldChurchGuy, despite the fact that I disagree with his beliefs, because he's open to considering that he might be wrong, no matter who says it. Do you know just how rare that is? It's something that needs to be encouraged. So I guess that's a third reason.

Quote from: junebug72

If you want the turmoil to end show me right now that you can accept me the way I am. Quit trying to rage a war with me. I am not your enemy. I have tried very hard to be a friend to the atheist and trust me, y'all need some friends on the theist side. By "your" I mean atheist not you personally but yes you personally as well. I want nothing less than peace for the human race. So what do you say, will you be my friend? I am a loyal friend. I want turn my back on you when times are hard. I will defend your atheist POV no matter what though.

If I have a problem with you over something, believe me, I'll take it up with you. Otherwise, my attitude is live and let live, as long as other people don't get hurt. As far as anything else goes? I just don't know you all that well, and I've had bad experiences with other people who wanted to be my friends but only wanted to take advantage of me for their own purposes, or who were friendly but had emotional problems which splashed on me. I've found it's better to be cautious until I feel I know someone well enough.

Quote from: junebug72

Don't you think peace could start by showing respect to those who believe differently? I have no respect for cruelty, I will be brave and stand against cruelty from believers as well as non believers. We can be a team without accepting each others POV about the existence of God.

And I do respect people who have different beliefs. The problem comes when their idea of respect is taking their half out of the middle and leaving you whatever they don't take. For example, those who advocate teaching intelligent design in science classrooms even though they don't have anything that really supports it scientifically. Those who pass on their religious beliefs in a public school classroom and act as if people who don't share those beliefs should just put up and shut up, or else go away. Those who feel that their religious convictions give them the right to dictate the way other people behave. They aren't being cruel, they aren't being vindictive, they're just blinkered by their beliefs and simply don't understand how much harm they're doing without even intending it. Do you see the problem?

And I do respect people who have different beliefs. The problem comes when their idea of respect is taking their half out of the middle and leaving you whatever they don't take. For example, those who advocate teaching intelligent design in science classrooms even though they don't have anything that really supports it scientifically. Those who pass on their religious beliefs in a public school classroom and act as if people who don't share those beliefs should just put up and shut up, or else go away. Those who feel that their religious convictions give them the right to dictate the way other people behave. They aren't being cruel, they aren't being vindictive, they're just blinkered by their beliefs and simply don't understand how much harm they're doing without even intending it. Do you see the problem?

Let's make a big deal out of a little old smite why don't we. 1-1=0.

OCG will survive.

Yes I think it is important for us all to admit a lack of knowledge. That goes for atheist too.

Is this not the path to PEACE?

You can't even make peace with me and I'm pretty easy, I hate to admit. I offer an olive branch and you refuse it.

The way I see it you should not blame others for what you yourself can not even do.

I'm looking at The Man in the Mirror. In my case I am a woman but you know what I mean. This website is so quick to judge others but don't like to look at themselves as "part of the problem".

That does not really address the lack of humility in preaching but kudos to you for being humble. I'm saying preaching is not humble. So if God is behind the rules should you not follow them? Should God not have made the rules easier to define? No need for answers here these are examples of my reasoning of how the bible makes God unbelievable.

No not allowing them to think for them selves is my definition of programming. How are they free to chose if they are taught Christianity as small children and the alternatives are not? It's all well and good in a loving/caring church such as your's but there is some serious brainwashing going on. My momma said if you lay with dogs you get fleas. The dogs of religion, IMO, has given the rest fleas. The whole bunch is spoiled. Thereby making God unbelievable. It's just a figure of speech, no harm meant.

If religion makes God unbelievable how is it a good thing?

I get the impression we are not that different. You don't care for the Bible as it takes away from an accurate understanding of God and I see the Bible as more of a guidebook toward understanding God. Neither of us is inclined to declare it is the divinely inspried inerrant word of God.

Your understanding of God is based solely on personal experience and personal revelation, if I understand things correctly. And I say that I am happy for you.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Logged

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

So OCG gets laminated for only accepting part of the bible and I get none for not believing any of it. You make no sense. I did get a thumbs up way back when so I guess that's OK. I have had my laminated moments here as well.

To quote from The Princess Bride....

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

So OCG gets laminated for only accepting part of the bible and I get none for not believing any of it. You make no sense. I did get a thumbs up way back when so I guess that's OK. I have had my laminated moments here as well.

To quote from The Princess Bride....

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

That does not really address the lack of humility in preaching but kudos to you for being humble. I'm saying preaching is not humble. So if God is behind the rules should you not follow them? Should God not have made the rules easier to define? No need for answers here these are examples of my reasoning of how the bible makes God unbelievable.

No not allowing them to think for them selves is my definition of programming. How are they free to chose if they are taught Christianity as small children and the alternatives are not? It's all well and good in a loving/caring church such as your's but there is some serious brainwashing going on. My momma said if you lay with dogs you get fleas. The dogs of religion, IMO, has given the rest fleas. The whole bunch is spoiled. Thereby making God unbelievable. It's just a figure of speech, no harm meant.

If religion makes God unbelievable how is it a good thing?

I get the impression we are not that different. You don't care for the Bible as it takes away from an accurate understanding of God and I see the Bible as more of a guidebook toward understanding God. Neither of us is inclined to declare it is the divinely inspried inerrant word of God.

Your understanding of God is based solely on personal experience and personal revelation, if I understand things correctly. And I say that I am happy for you.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Yes we are O. We are not that different. We both seem to believe from values and heart. I think we are both disturbed by the things people do in God's/Jesus's name.

That is why I feel so strongly against religion. 1 person with a bad understanding ain't that big a deal. Get 5 million and buddy we got a problem. In my life experience it seems like sometimes you just need to throw away a failed project and just start fresh with a clean slate. I mean 4000 denominations, come on now. That seriously dilutes Jesus and his name. Church leaders either need to get together and make up their minds or just give up already.

At the very least pass a law that states a pastor MUST have certification from an approved school just like a DR or any other professional. After all they are dealing with our afterlife, IMO. I still don't think it's humble to preach. At least this would make people know the book they are preaching from better. It's called to the ministry preachers that really spoil the whole bunch. They are the literalist makers.

Do you believe science is made up? I ask because science explains quite a bit about nature and consciousness. If you feel science produces tested facts of nature and consciousness, and religion is made up why be religious/spiritual?

Quote

There are many concepts of God left behind and then there's mine. I mean these days it's like I interpret that from this guys interpretation and I believe this based on that guys interpretation of that guy so on and so on and so on and so on and so on etc etc etc......

Ultimately I think that is how we all roll. In some ways. Believers and non believers alike.

Quote

I believe; how you believe in God defines you not God. I also believe how you act as an atheist defines you not atheism.

Fair enough.

Although I think the second statement holds true for both camps. How you act as a Christian defines you not Christianity. And how you act as an atheist defines you not atheism.

Hey G,

No I don't believe science is made up. I am not religious. I am spiritual because that's what my mind decided was good for me. It has helped me through some very rough patches. I am a hopeless romantic, probably hard wired for it.

That does not really address the lack of humility in preaching but kudos to you for being humble. I'm saying preaching is not humble. So if God is behind the rules should you not follow them? Should God not have made the rules easier to define? No need for answers here these are examples of my reasoning of how the bible makes God unbelievable.

No not allowing them to think for them selves is my definition of programming. How are they free to chose if they are taught Christianity as small children and the alternatives are not? It's all well and good in a loving/caring church such as your's but there is some serious brainwashing going on. My momma said if you lay with dogs you get fleas. The dogs of religion, IMO, has given the rest fleas. The whole bunch is spoiled. Thereby making God unbelievable. It's just a figure of speech, no harm meant.

If religion makes God unbelievable how is it a good thing?

I get the impression we are not that different. You don't care for the Bible as it takes away from an accurate understanding of God and I see the Bible as more of a guidebook toward understanding God. Neither of us is inclined to declare it is the divinely inspried inerrant word of God.

Your understanding of God is based solely on personal experience and personal revelation, if I understand things correctly. And I say that I am happy for you.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Yes we are O. We are not that different. We both seem to believe from values and heart. I think we are both disturbed by the things people do in God's/Jesus's name.

That is why I feel so strongly against religion. 1 person with a bad understanding ain't that big a deal. Get 5 million and buddy we got a problem. In my life experience it seems like sometimes you just need to throw away a failed project and just start fresh with a clean slate. I mean 4000 denominations, come on now. That seriously dilutes Jesus and his name. Church leaders either need to get together and make up their minds or just give up already.

At the very least pass a law that states a pastor MUST have certification from an approved school just like a DR or any other professional. After all they are dealing with our afterlife, IMO. I still don't think it's humble to preach. At least this would make people know the book they are preaching from better. It's called to the ministry preachers that really spoil the whole bunch. They are the literalist makers.

What do you think? Of course I welcome any opinion.

JB

Passing a law might setting any standards for a minister may be a separation of church and state issue. But maybe not. I don't know.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Logged

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

At the very least pass a law that states a pastor MUST have certification from an approved school just like a DR or any other professional. After all they are dealing with our afterlife, IMO. I still don't think it's humble to preach. At least this would make people know the book they are preaching from better. It's called to the ministry preachers that really spoil the whole bunch. They are the literalist makers.

Passing a law might setting any standards for a minister may be a separation of church and state issue. But maybe not. I don't know.

I think the point was to get "the church" to come to a definitive conclusion on what god is, and certify their priests so that there would only be one "official" view of that faith.

Sounds okay at first look, but would be very dangerous in practice. It would mean that anyone with a conflicting opinion about what god is or wants would.....what? Be imprisoned, or fined? Or be a legitimate object of ridicule for not following the establishment line?

It also means that Christianity itself would be banned, being as it is a revision of Judaism. It would mean, in effect, that whoever had the first idea of god would be the arbiter of what was or was not right. And if they got it wrong in any way, there would be big barriers in the way of discovering the truth.

If on the other hand we are saying that some non-religious body would have the final say, then likely every opinion would be labelled wrong, since I guess the impartial source would be looking at the evidence behind the beliefs in order to stamp a seal of approval on it. Again, depends on what the consequences of non-approval would be - but harsh consequences would impact heavily on anyone not agreeing worth the Establishment, and softer or no consequences make me wonder why bother in the first place.

Spiritual means you and only you is responsible for your beliefs. There's no trying to control the masses or profits of any kind. It is just a way to prepare my spirit for the physical death. No church required and definitely no preachers.

At the very least pass a law that states a pastor MUST have certification from an approved school just like a DR or any other professional. After all they are dealing with our afterlife, IMO. I still don't think it's humble to preach. At least this would make people know the book they are preaching from better. It's called to the ministry preachers that really spoil the whole bunch. They are the literalist makers.

Passing a law might setting any standards for a minister may be a separation of church and state issue. But maybe not. I don't know.

I think the point was to get "the church" to come to a definitive conclusion on what god is, and certify their priests so that there would only be one "official" view of that faith.

Sounds okay at first look, but would be very dangerous in practice. It would mean that anyone with a conflicting opinion about what god is or wants would.....what? Be imprisoned, or fined? Or be a legitimate object of ridicule for not following the establishment line?

It also means that Christianity itself would be banned, being as it is a revision of Judaism. It would mean, in effect, that whoever had the first idea of god would be the arbiter of what was or was not right. And if they got it wrong in any way, there would be big barriers in the way of discovering the truth.

If on the other hand we are saying that some non-religious body would have the final say, then likely every opinion would be labelled wrong, since I guess the impartial source would be looking at the evidence behind the beliefs in order to stamp a seal of approval on it. Again, depends on what the consequences of non-approval would be - but harsh consequences would impact heavily on anyone not agreeing worth the Establishment, and softer or no consequences make me wonder why bother in the first place.

Well put Anfauglir. I don't see any reason these issues of concern couldn't be ironed out. The first step would be to completely separate the OT from the NT. That will take care of their affiliation with Judaism, sort of. Take out all inserted verses and insert the omitted ones.

Isn't there a sense of priority when the constitution is involved. I think the nature of separation was to keep the church out of government not the other way around.

I just don't think the problems with religion is going to fix itself. When things are harmful to society is that not when Big Brother steps in and passes laws?

When someone has doubts or concerns about the doctrine there should be a panel of certified counselors where this person can share their concerns.

Spiritual means you and only you is responsible for your beliefs. There's no trying to control the masses or profits of any kind. It is just a way to prepare my spirit for the physical death. No church required and definitely no preachers.

You may wish to work on that definition. As you've phrased it, someone like me with zero god-belief is as "spiritual" as you are. I'm not certain that's what you really want to mean when you use the word.

Some years ago, I was teaching an Adult Sunday School class and one of the members asked to talk with me afterwards.

The family had recently transferred from another church so I didn't know her very well. Here is her story:

A few years prior she gave birth to a boy with a severely damaged heart so the child lived only a few days. The pastor fo the church they attended at the time offered consolation and when asked if her boy was in heaven the pastor replied firmly but politely, "no". The pastor was a "literalist" in his understanding of the New Testament writings and said (as politely as possible as near as I can tell) that since her son did not declare Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior, her son was not in heaven. He was in an area nearby and safe, but not in heaven.

She asked my opinion and I gave it. Before I share what I said, I am curious how you would respond to this story and her question.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

I don't blame the pastor because he has simply passed on what he believed. He did the right thing according to his conscience. He no doubt thought it better to be honest than just tell her something nice to make her feel better.

Having said that, I am fairly certain that he is at least partially mistaken because he has been brought up in a branch of Christianity which takes a literalist approach to the bible.

Does the pastor know what heaven is ? Does he know what God is ? Does he know what a soul is ? Does he know what a child is ? To answer the mother accurately and precisely would require him knowing all those things and knowing them well. We get a bit of information about those things from the bible and from Church tradition. We get a bit of information about those things from life. We get a bit of information about those things through Church tradition. We get a bit of information about those things from science and philosophy. But we are definitely not experts. We should not pretend to be. We should not be arrogant by thinking that we know all about these things.

Accepting our ignorance does not mean that we can say nothing, but we need to be humble; admit that we are expressing an opinion; and as very limited beings we should acknowledge especially in matters relating to God that we can have little certainty about how a perfect and all powerful being will influence or determine a soul's future.

Would a perfect being punish a child for dying before it can speak or profess beliefs ? In my view, to answer 'yes' would contradict the very nature of perfection. But that is simply my opinion as a Christian and from my overall understanding of Christianity.

Spiritual means you and only you is responsible for your beliefs. There's no trying to control the masses or profits of any kind. It is just a way to prepare my spirit for the physical death. No church required and definitely no preachers.

You may wish to work on that definition. As you've phrased it, someone like me with zero god-belief is as "spiritual" as you are. I'm not certain that's what you really want to mean when you use the word.

I wasn't sure about is/are but I'm good with my use of the word "spiritual".

It does my heart good to believe an atheist is "spiritual" w/o a belief in God. I believe we all have "spirit". "Spirit" is self. I believe even a tree has spirit. Every living thing even hardened criminals. I think their "spirit" has been damaged/broken, abusive childhoods, loss of income, loss of love...loss.

Some years ago, I was teaching an Adult Sunday School class and one of the members asked to talk with me afterwards.

The family had recently transferred from another church so I didn't know her very well. Here is her story:

A few years prior she gave birth to a boy with a severely damaged heart so the child lived only a few days. The pastor fo the church they attended at the time offered consolation and when asked if her boy was in heaven the pastor replied firmly but politely, "no". The pastor was a "literalist" in his understanding of the New Testament writings and said (as politely as possible as near as I can tell) that since her son did not declare Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior, her son was not in heaven. He was in an area nearby and safe, but not in heaven.

She asked my opinion and I gave it. Before I share what I said, I am curious how you would respond to this story and her question.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

I don't blame the pastor because he has simply passed on what he believed. He did the right thing according to his conscience. He no doubt thought it better to be honest than just tell her something nice to make her feel better.

Having said that, I am fairly certain that he is at least partially mistaken because he has been brought up in a branch of Christianity which takes a literalist approach to the bible.

Does the pastor know what heaven is ? Does he know what God is ? Does he know what a soul is ? Does he know what a child is ? To answer the mother accurately and precisely would require him knowing all those things and knowing them well. We get a bit of information about those things from the bible and from Church tradition. We get a bit of information about those things from life. We get a bit of information about those things through Church tradition. We get a bit of information about those things from science and philosophy. But we are definitely not experts. We should not pretend to be. We should not be arrogant by thinking that we know all about these things.

Accepting our ignorance does not mean that we can say nothing, but we need to be humble; admit that we are expressing an opinion; and as very limited beings we should acknowledge especially in matters relating to God that we can have little certainty about how a perfect and all powerful being will influence or determine a soul's future.

Would a perfect being punish a child for dying before it can speak or profess beliefs ? In my view, to answer 'yes' would contradict the very nature of perfection. But that is simply my opinion as a Christian and from my overall understanding of Christianity.

Hi Dominic it's nice to meet you.

See if all Christians could agree...Oh what peace there'd be. I blame religion.

In no way shape or form is preaching humble. That makes the very invention of the religion Christianity a contradiction to itself. Making God even more unbelievable than the bible does. It adds insult to injury.

I think temples out of respect for Jesus should only be a place to pray and give thanks. A place to do good for the poor and less fortunate and let the all powerful God speak for itself.

Spiritual means you and only you is responsible for your beliefs. There's no trying to control the masses or profits of any kind. It is just a way to prepare my spirit for the physical death. No church required and definitely no preachers.

JB

One can't help but notice that the people who claim to be "spiritual"[1] have been influenced by the theists around them for their entire life. But, less bullshit is still less bullshit, so the "spiritual, who don't belong to a religion" people are more correct than the theists. Many "spiritual" people can even be considered atheists.

Median asked for a definition of "spiritual". It's a good question because it might cause the "spiritual" person to explore what the hell they are actually talking about, and it might help them shed some of their "spirituality".

Spiritual means you and only you is responsible for your beliefs. There's no trying to control the masses or profits of any kind. It is just a way to prepare my spirit for the physical death. No church required and definitely no preachers.

JB

One can't help but notice that the people who claim to be "spiritual"[1] have been influenced by the theists around them for their entire life. But, less bullshit is still less bullshit, so the "spiritual, who don't belong to a religion" people are more correct than the theists. Many "spiritual" people can even be considered atheists.

Median asked for a definition of "spiritual". It's a good question because it might cause the "spiritual" person to explore what the hell they are actually talking about, and it might help them shed some of their "spirituality".

But might not spiritual mean something to an atheist too? Like the feelings of awe one has looking up into mountains or even look at deep space picture of thousand upon thousand of galaxies any none of which might house a planet like ours?

<<Mod quotefix>>

« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 12:17:48 PM by Anfauglir »

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Spiritual means you and only you is responsible for your beliefs. There's no trying to control the masses or profits of any kind. It is just a way to prepare my spirit for the physical death. No church required and definitely no preachers.

You may wish to work on that definition. As you've phrased it, someone like me with zero god-belief is as "spiritual" as you are. I'm not certain that's what you really want to mean when you use the word.

I wasn't sure about is/are but I'm good with my use of the word "spiritual".

It does my heart good to believe an atheist is "spiritual" w/o a belief in God. I believe we all have "spirit". "Spirit" is self. I believe even a tree has spirit. Every living thing even hardened criminals. I think their "spirit" has been damaged/broken, abusive childhoods, loss of income, loss of love...loss.

Trouble is, the broader you make the definition, the less meaning it has. You are saying that trees are spiritual as well? That trees are responsible for their own beliefs?

As you have defined it, I am exactly as spiritual as you are - we are both responsible for our beliefs and have a "self". Likewise, a tree has a "self" and is, again, exactly as spiritual as you or I.

I have no problem with that definition as it stands. I just feel it is meaningless as a term because it allows no distinction between any living thing - and if that is the case why use the term at all? Why not use the simpler (and less baggage-ridden) word "alive"?

Spiritual means you and only you is responsible for your beliefs. There's no trying to control the masses or profits of any kind. It is just a way to prepare my spirit for the physical death. No church required and definitely no preachers.

JB

One can't help but notice that the people who claim to be "spiritual"[1] have been influenced by the theists around them for their entire life. But, less bullshit is still less bullshit, so the "spiritual, who don't belong to a religion" people are more correct than the theists. Many "spiritual" people can even be considered atheists.

Median asked for a definition of "spiritual". It's a good question because it might cause the "spiritual" person to explore what the hell they are actually talking about, and it might help them shed some of their "spirituality".

But might not spiritual mean something to an atheist too? Like the feelings of awe one has looking up into mountains or even look at deep space picture of thousand upon thousand of galaxies any none of which might house a planet like ours?

<<Mod quotefix>>

Most definitely. Words like "spiritual", "love", and even "sin" mean certain things to theists and atheists alike. It's just that I've seen the word "spiritual" brought into a conversation in similar contexts like this one involving junebug72.

It's hard to be alive w/o spirit, IMO. What separates us from trees is we know we are alive. We know we will die. If the tree loses it's spirit, other trees hogging the light, pollution, it's gives up hope and dies. When a human loses spirit they hurt others. The tree will fertilize and benefit the land transcending it's essence into immortality. The human can become a monster destroying the spirit of others.

Spiritual to me is simply guiding your own spirit w/o the help of religion.

I hope this gives a better meaning for you to think about Anfauglir. I'm sure someone could define spiritual better than me. This is just how I see it.

Spiritual means you and only you is responsible for your beliefs. There's no trying to control the masses or profits of any kind. It is just a way to prepare my spirit for the physical death. No church required and definitely no preachers.

JB

So spiritual is a synonym for being responsible for what you think is true? This is a useless definition. Btw, you used the word "spirit" in your definition. So the term is circular and therefore IRRATIONAL.

^^^Anybody else see the smite MagicMiles gave me for this? LOL. Real mature. Yeah, I can really feel that "love of Jesus", that "fruit of the spirit", and that witness of 'God's love'. Not. You're better at pushing people away from your faith. Nice.

Spiritual means you and only you is responsible for your beliefs. There's no trying to control the masses or profits of any kind. It is just a way to prepare my spirit for the physical death. No church required and definitely no preachers.

JB

So spiritual is a synonym for being responsible for what you think is true? This is a useless definition. Btw, you used the word "spirit" in your definition. So the term is circular and therefore IRRATIONAL.

Fail.

Well I guess Webster needs to be informed. When a word is an extension of another word the original word is commonly used to define it.

Spiritual to me is simply guiding your own spirit w/o the help of religion.

I hope this gives a better meaning for you to think about Anfauglir. I'm sure someone could define spiritual better than me. This is just how I see it.

Unfortunately not really. In the first few posts you said:

Spiritual means you and only you is responsible for your beliefs. Tick, yes, that's me.There's no trying to control the masses or profits of any kind. Tick again.I believe we all have "spirit". "Spirit" is self. (your clarification on what spirit means)It is just a way to prepare my spirit (my self) for the physical death. Tick again.Spiritual to me is simply guiding your own spirit (again, my self) w/o the help of religion. And Tick.So in summary - Spirituality is being responsible for your beliefs, not blindly following a religion, not trying to profit from other people, preparing yourself for death.

Fine, like I said I tick all the boxes, but so far there is absolutely zero god-belief required, and hence I am as "spiritual" as you. Maybe we are? Maybe that is exactly and all that you mean. I just get the sense that that isn't what you mean when you use the word as you've defined it, or that there is more you intend from the term than you are saying?

Incidentally, its not necessarily about someone else defining it "better". In this case, "better" would simply mean "closer to what I feel but have not articulated". The only reason I'm pushing it is - as Lot and Wheels have said - people can mean a whooole lot of different things when they use the word "spiritual". And that means that when someone uses it, it is important to understand what it means to them, in order to make sense of the context they use it in.

the force within a person that is believed to give the body life, energy, and power.the inner quality or nature of a person.

Now here it becomes more complicated, as those are two very different meanings, neither of which really gel with what you've said before. The first - "a force within that gives the body life" has NO connection to anything you've said before here when you used the word "spiritual" - indeed, it seems to add that extra mystical component that Wheels and Lot were referring to.

Or, it just might mean "electro-chemical activity"! But either way, both still mean that your spirituality is exactly equal to mine - or median's, or wheels', or lot's. And if that's the case, why not simply say "we are all human" and have done - why use another word that makes no additional distinction?